37746 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

[Docket No. 29277; Notice No.98–6]

RIN 2120–AG59

Rotorcraft Load Combination Safety

Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

amendment of the airworthiness

standards for rotorcraft load

combination (RLC) certification. This

proposal would revise the safety

requirements for RLC’s to address

advances in technology and to provide

an increased level of safety in the

carriage of humans. These proposed

amendments would provide an

improvement in the safety standards for

RLC certification and lead to a

harmonized international standard.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before October 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed

rule may be delivered or mailed in

triplicate to: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket

(AGC–200), Docket No. 29277, Room

915G, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591. Comments

delivered must be marked Docket No.

29277. Comments may also be sent

electronically to the following internet

address: 9-nprm-cmts@.faa.dot.gov.

Comments may be examined in Room

915G on weekdays between 8:30 a.m.

and 5:00 p.m., except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Mike Mathias, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service,

Regulations Group, FAA, Fort Worth,

Texas 76193–0111, telephone (817)

222–5123.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, or

arguments on this proposed rule.

Comments relating to the

environmental, energy, federalism, or

economic impact that might result from

adopting the proposals in this notice are

also invited. Substantive comments

should be accompanied by cost

estimates. Comments should identify

the regulatory docket number and

should be submitted in triplicate to the

Rules Docket address specified above.

All comments received on or before

the closing date for comments specified

will be considered by the Administrator

before taking action on this proposed

rulemaking. Late-filed comments will be

considered to the extent practicable.

The proposals contained in this notice

may be changed in light of the

comments received.

All comments received, as well as a

report summarizing each substantive

public contact with FAA personnel on

this rulemaking, will be filed in the

docket. The docket is available for

public inspection before and after the

comment closing date.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must include a preaddressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 29277.’’ The postcard will be

date stamped and returned to the

commenter.

Availability of NPRM’s

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded using a modem and

suitable communications software from

the FAA regulations section of the

Fedworld electronic bulletin board

service (telephone: 703–321–3339), the

Federal Register’s electronic bulletin

board service (telephone: 202–512–

1661), or the FAA’s Aviation

Rulemaking Advisory Committee

Bulletin Board service (telephone: 800–

322–2722 or (202) 267–5948).

Internet users may reach the FAA’s

web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/

arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the Federal

Register’s web page at http://

www.access.gpo.gov/su—docs/aces/

aces140.html for access to recently

published rulemaking documents.

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1,

800 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington DC 20591, or by calling

(202) 267–9680. Communications must

identify the notice number of this

NPRM.

Persons interested in being placed on

a mailing list for future NPRM’s should

request a copy of Advisory Circular No.

11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Distribution System, which describes

the application procedures.

History

For many years the design standards

for external load attaching means for

normal and transport category rotorcraft

were contained in Subpart D,

Airworthiness Requirements of 14 CFR

part 133 (part 133), Rotorcraft External

Load Operations. However, these design

standards more appropriately belonged

under parts 27 and 29. Amendments

27–11 (41 FR 55469, December 20,

1976) and 29–12 (41 FR 55454,

December 20, 1976) added new

§§ 27.865 and 29.865 and moved some

of these design standards from the

operational rules of part 133 to the

certification rules of parts 27 and 29.

Rotorcraft-load combination classes

(RLC) are defined in 14 CFR 1.1. Part

133 prohibits the carrying of humans,

except for crewmembers, external to the

aircraft under all existing RLC’s (A, B,

or C). However, on April 5, 1978,

Exemption No. 2534 was granted to

permit carrying harbor pilots external to

the rotorcraft using a hoist and sling.

Because of the proven public utility of

the operations conducted with

Exemption No. 2534, in January 1987,

after notice and a public meeting,

Amendment 133–9 (51 FR 40707,

November 7, 1986) was adopted.

Amendment 133–9 established

provisions for a new Class D RLC for

transporting external loads other than

Classes A, B, or C. Class D may apply

to either human or nonhuman external

cargo operations; however, under

Amendment 133–9, § 133.45(e) specifies

that only certain Transport Category A

rotorcraft can be used for RLC Class D

external load operations. Also,

Amendment 133–9 added § 133.35 to

establish specific limitations and the

necessary safety requirements for

routine external load transportation

under Class D.

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee (ARAC) involvement

In 1991 the FAA requested that ARAC

study the need to revise the regulations

on RLC in light of advancements in

technology and operational procedures

and to develop regulatory

recommendations. The ARAC was

established on February 5, 1991 (56 FR

2190, January 22, 1991), to assist the

FAA in the rulemaking process by

providing advice from the private sector

on major regulatory issues affecting

aviation safety. The ARAC includes

representatives of manufacturers, air

carriers, general aviation, industry

associations, labor groups, universities,

and the general public. The ARAC’s

formation has given the FAA additional

opportunities to solicit information

directly from significantly affected

parties who meet and exchange ideas

about proposed and existing rules that

should be either created, revised, or

eliminated.

On November 27, 1992, following an

announcement in the Federal Register

(56 FR 63546, December 4, 1991), the

ARAC charged The External Load
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37747

Working Group with making a

recommendation to the ARAC

concerning whether new or revised

airworthiness standards are appropriate

for Class D rotorcraft external loads, as

follows: ‘‘Should parts 27 or 29 be

amended to incorporate Class D external

load attaching means, to complement

Amendment 133–9, which authorizes

the transport of passengers external to

the rotorcraft, with certain conditions

and limitations?’’

The working group, chaired by a

representative from McDonnell Douglas

Helicopter Systems, included technical

specialists knowledgeable in both

military and civil external load

operations, in external load and

emergency rescue equipment design and

manufacturing, and in both FAA and

industry external load design and

operational requirements. This broad

participation is consistent with FAA

policy to have all known interested

parties involved as early as practicable

in the rulemaking process.

The working group reviewed

unpublished data regarding external

loads safety issues developed by the

FAA as the starting point for their

discussions. After reviewing the

unpublished data, the working group

determined that it was necessary to do

further research and to include

consideration of more diverse design

configurations and operating

procedures.

The working group reviewed current

methods that the military and other

nations’ airworthiness authorities use to

certificate aircraft conducting external

load operations. The group also

evaluated current operational practices

with aircraft certificated in all categories

and public aircraft operations involving

human and nonhuman external loads.

The working group researched available

military and domestic safety standards

and guidance, the accident and incident

history of external load operations

conducted under current certification

standards, and the specific safety

requirements necessary for human and

nonhuman external load operations in

each RLC class.

Technical Research

The following material was

researched by the ARAC working group

and contributed significantly to

formulating these proposals. Copies may

be found in Rules Docket No. 29277.

1. United States Army Material

Command (USA, AMC) Pamphlet No.

706–203, ‘‘Engineering Design

Handbook Helicopter Engineering, Part

Three, Qualification Assurance,’’

Headquarters United States Army

Material Command, Washington, D.C.

20315.

2. USAAVSCOM TR 89–D–22A,

‘‘Aircraft Crash Survival Design Guide;

Volume IV—Aircraft Seats, Restraints,

Litters, and Cockpit/Cabin

Delethalization.’’

3. MIL–STD–882B, ‘‘Military

Standard-System Safety Program

Requirements,’’ March 30, 1984.

4. MIL–STD–1472D, ‘‘Military

Standard-Human Engineering Design

Criteria for Military Systems,

Equipment, and Facilities,’’ March 14,

1989.

5. British Civil Airworthiness

Requirements 29, Issue 1, December 17,

1986.

6. Advisory Circular 133–1A,

‘‘Rotorcraft External-Load Operations in

Accordance with part 133,’’ October 16,

1979.

7. ‘‘Rotorcraft Use in Disaster Relief

and Mass Casualty Incidents-Case

Studies,’’ DOT/FAA/RD–90/10, June

1990.

8. ‘‘Guidelines for Integrating

Helicopter Assets into Emergency

Planning,’’ DOT/FAA/RD–90/11, July

1991.

9. FAA Order 8700.1, ‘‘General

Aviation Operations Inspector’s

Handbook’’ Chapter 96, Change 8,

March 1, 1992.

The research centered on the

following:

(1) Current methods used by the

military to qualify external loads;

(2) Current methods used by the

world’s airworthiness authorities for

certification of external loads;

(3) Current practice in restricted

category and public use operations

regarding human and nonhuman

external load operations;

(4) Load retention and release devices

that exist and are certifiable;

(5) Current military and domestic

safety standards and guidance;

(6) Accident and incident history of

external load operations that relate to

the current certification standards; and

(7) Specific certification safety

requirements that are necessary for

human versus nonhuman external load

operations.

Statement of the Issues

Although rotorcraft external load

operations are routinely conducted in a

safe manner under the existing safety

standards, several preventable accidents

and incidents have occurred during the

preceding decade. For example, several

preventable inadvertent releases of

humans being carried external to the

rotorcraft have occurred due to the lack

of specific safety standards for quickrelease systems (QRS). Additionally, the

equipment employed in external load

operations has changed significantly

since the existing safety standards were

promulgated. Examples of these

equipment changes are more diverse,

maneuverable, and powerful rotorcraft

designs, new QRS designs, new

personnel carrying device systems

(PCDS) designs, and new methods of

rigging external loads to the rotorcraft.

Because of the need for both

modernization and a higher level of

safety, this proposal would address

safety requirements for human external

cargo (HEC) and nonhuman external

cargo (NHEC); update load-to-verticalangle certification requirements; add

reliability and durability requirements

for external load retention and release

systems and devices; and add

electromagnetic interference and

lightning protection requirements

because these items are not specifically

addressed in the existing regulations.

In addition, this proposal would

amend part 29 by adding new

certification requirements that are

compatible with the operating

requirements of current part 133 for RLC

Class D external loads. This proposal

would provide a clearly specified

certification safety standard for RLC

Class D external loads in part 29. The

change to part 29 would respond to

increasing public demand for specific

RLC Class D provisions that meet

operational needs through standardized

certification criteria.

Studies and analyses of service

difficulty reports and the introduction

of modern external load equipment and

operational practices have shown a need

for updating the regulations to (1)

significantly decrease the potential for

future accidents and incidents; (2)

ensure that external cargo load carrying

devices, their release mechanisms, their

load carrying systems, and their flight

performance, reflect modern operational

needs; and (3) provide updated

standards that can be harmonized with

the Joint Airworthiness Regulations

(JAR).

Current Requirements

Currently, §§ 27.865 and 29.865

contain identical provisions and apply

only to RLC Class A, B, and C loads at

the gross weights and associated load

factors common for relatively heavy

NHEC loads. Primary and secondary

quick-release devices are required;

however, specific safety features and

test and reliability requirements for the

entire QRS are not specified. In-flight

handling qualities and release (i.e.,

jettisonability) characteristics of NHEC

and HEC are not currently addressed.
37748 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Part 29 Transport Category A

rotorcraft are eligible under part 133 for

Class D RLC operations. However, part

29 design standards do not exist for

certification of Class D RLC’s.

FAA Evaluation of ARAC

Recommendation

After reviewing the External Load

Working Group’s work product and the

ARAC recommendations, the FAA has

determined that parts 27 and 29 should

be revised to establish an increased

margin of safety in rotorcraft external

load operations. These revisions are

necessary to implement modern safety

standards that accommodate current

and anticipated operational RLC

applications and procedures and

provide separate levels of safety for

NHEC and HEC RLC’s. These new safety

standards are more fully described in

the General Discussion of Proposals

section. These changes to parts 27 and

29 include the addition of: (1) increased

load factors for HEC; (2) increased QRS

safety standards for both NHEC and

HEC; (3) new PCDS standards for HEC;

(4) new flight-handling characteristic

standards for both NHEC and HEC; (5)

increased fatigue substantiation

standards for both NHEC and HEC; and

(6) to part 29 only, the RLC Class D

standard. These improvements to the

safety standards should prevent many

accidents and incidents. The proposal

would provide identical, improved

external load standards for rotorcraft

certificated under parts 27 and 29 and

would provide RLC Class D certification

standards under part 29.

General Discussion of Proposals

These proposals would provide

essentially identical external load

standards in parts 27 and 29. In

addition, both the part 27 and 29

proposals would provide certification

standards for all RLC’s that are

compatible with the operational

requirements in part 133.

Proposed Amendments to §§ 27.25(c)

and 29.25(c)

The proposed amendments to

§§ 27.25 and 29.25 would limit the

availability of increased gross weights to

those RLC’s that involve the carriage of

nonhuman loads. For applications for

certification with human loads, the

applicant would be limited by

subparagraph (c)(1) to the maximum

weight established in § 27.25(a). The

changes would be a new limitation to

reflect the distinction being made

between those operations involving the

carrying of humans externally for which

a higher level of safety is needed.

Proposed Amendments to §§ 27.865 and

29.865

Because the proposed amendments

would address more than just the

attachment means for external loads, the

undesignated center headings and the

section titles of proposed §§ 27.865 and

29.865 would be changed from

‘‘External Load Attaching Means’’ to

‘‘External Loads.’’

Proposed Amendments to §§ 27.865(a)

and 29.865(a)

The addition of new human external

cargo certification requirements (HEC)

and additional requirements for

nonhuman external cargo (NHEC)

certification results in modification of

§§ 27.865(a) and 29.865(a). The most

significant modification is a change in

the current load factor specification to

distinguish between and provide the

required additional level of safety for

HEC.

Current §§ 27.865(a) and 29.865(a)

require the use of a 2.5g vertical limit

load factor or a lesser value (derived

from current §§ 27.337 through 27.341

or 29.337 through 29.341) at the

maximum external load value for which

certification is requested. This 2.5g limit

load factor would be retained for NHEC

applications in the proposals.

However, for HEC applications that

are typically lower gross weight

configurations, proposed §§ 27.865(a)

and 29.865(a) contain a higher vertical

limit load factor to be applied to the

external load attachment and the entire

attached PCDS. The higher vertical limit

load factor is specified by these

proposals as either the analytically

derived maximum vertical limit load

factor for the proposed operating

envelope or a vertical limit load factor

of 3.5 (derived from §§ 27.337 and

29.337). However, in no case would

these proposals allow the maximum

vertical limit load factor for HEC to be

less than 2.5. Linear interpolation

between minimum and maximum

vertical design load factors and standard

operating gross weight is one simple,

acceptable means to determine design

limit load factors.

Proposed §§ 27.865(a) and 29.865(a)

would also require the limit static load

for any RLC, either HEC or NHEC, to be

determined and applied in both the

vertical direction, and for jettisonable

external loads in any direction, making

the maximum angle that can be

achieved in service (but not less than

30°) with the vertical axis of the

rotorcraft. The term ‘‘maximum angle

that can be achieved in service’’ means

the largest angle expected to occur

during normal operation. This term is

added to the vertical angle requirement

to ensure that sidepull (or other)

configurations used for jettisonable RLC

applications, such as wire stringing, that

typically involve angles greater than the

current 30°, would be addressed at the

time of certification. The current 30°

angle requirement was established

based on the rule-of-thumb design limit

for winch or hoist applications typical

when the rule was promulgated and

applications using larger angles were

unforeseen. The proposed rule would

not change the 30° angle limitation for

winch or hoist applications. The

existing rule does not specifically

address RLC applications such as

sidepull configurations. These proposed

section changes would more closely

match the needed safety standards to

the type of RLC operations in the

industry.

Proposed Amendments to §§ 27.865(b)

and 29.865(b)

The terms ‘‘quick-release system,’’

‘‘primary quick release subsystem,’’ and

‘‘backup quick release subsystem’’ are

substituted throughout proposed

§§ 27.865(b) and 29.865(b) for the

current terminology of quick-release

device, primary quick-release device,

and mechanical backup quick-release

device to require certification of the

entire QRS, not just the quick-release

devices. The proposals would also

require that the primary and backup

QRS be isolated from one another to

ensure fail safety.

Also to facilitate harmonization with

the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), the

FAA proposes to delete the current

references to RLC Classes B and C from

§§ 27.865(b) and 29.865(b). These

references are not necessary to the

proposed new §§ 27.865(b) and

29.865(b) because the design

distinctions necessary to provide the

required level of safety would be made

during certification without a need to

refer to the operations based RLC

classes. These distinctions are made by

specifying whether or not an external

load is jettisonable or non-jettisonable

and whether or not an external load is

human or non-human.

Proposed Amendments to

§§ 27.865(b)(1) and 29.865(b)(1)

Proposed §§ 27.865(b)(1) and

29.865(b)(1) would allow the primary

quick release control to be mounted

either on a primary control or in any

equivalently accessible location. This

proposed change is intended to

liberalize design options and allow a

more realistic workload distribution

among larger dedicated crews while

maintaining the same level-of-safety.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37749

The proposals would allow the control

to be operated by a crewmember

without necessarily being reachable by

the pilot. The rotorcraft’s approved

operating procedures must address the

responsibilities and procedures for the

control of the QRS.

Proposed Amendments to

§§ 27.865(b)(2) and 29.865(b)(2)

Proposed §§ 27.865(b)(2) and

29.865(b)(2) would change the current

requirement that the backup control for

the quick-release device be only a

manual mechanical control. These

proposals would require that a backup

quick release subsystem of an approved

design be readily available to the pilot

or other crewmember.

Proposed Amendments to

§§ 27.865(b)(3)(i) and 29.865(b)(3)(i)

Because of adverse service history and

the need to specifically distinguish the

levels of safety for HEC and NHEC,

proposed §§ 27.865(b)(3)(i) and

29.865(b)(3)(i) would require that both

the primary and backup quick release

subsystems be reliable, durable, and

functional. Reliability would be

demonstrated by use of design features

and by use of failure modes and effects

analysis. Both reliability and durability

would be demonstrated by use of

repetitive functional tests. These

proposed reliability and durability

criteria would apply only to newly

modified or type certificated helicopters

equipped with external load attachment

provisions or devices or both.

Proposed Amendments to

§§ 27.865(b)(3)(ii) and 29.865(b)(3)(ii)

Proposed §§ 27.865(b)(3)(ii) and

29.865(b)(3)(ii) would require protection

of the quick-release subsystems against

potential internal and external sources

of electromagnetic interference (EMI)

and lightning. The new requirements

are necessary to prevent inadvertent

jettison of NHEC and HEC from sources

such as stray electromagnetic signals,

static electricity, and lightning strikes.

Proposed field intensity levels are 200

volts per meter for applicable portions

of QRS used for HEC and 20 volts per

meter for applicable portions of QRS

used for NHEC. The purpose of the

requirements is for those applicable

portions of the QRS to withstand these

field intensity levels without

inadvertent load release.

Proposed Amendments to

§§ 27.865(b)(3)(iii) and 29.865(b)(3)(iii)

Proposed §§ 27.865(b)(3)(iii) and

29.865(b)(3)(iii) would require that the

quick-release subsystems be protected

against failures that could occur as a

result of an electrical or mechanical

malfunction of other rotorcraft

components.

Proposed Amendments to §§ 27.865(c)

and 29.865(c).

This proposal would redesignate

existing §§ 27.865(c) and 29.865(c) as

§§ 27.865(e) and 29.865(e), respectively.

New §§ 27.865(c) and 29.865(c) are

proposed to separately address the

safety requirements for HEC carriage.

The new requirements would ensure

that the HEC certification requirements

are clearly and properly identified.

Proposed Amendments §§ 27.865(c)(1)

and 29.865(c)(1)

Proposed §§ 27.865(c)(1) and

29.865(c)(1) would require that the HEC

load release primary and backup

controls meet the requirements of

§§ 27.865(b) and 29.865(b), respectively,

and that both controls be designed to

require dual actuation (i.e., require two

distinct actions) for load release. This is

necessary to mitigate inadvertent HEC

release.

Proposed Amendments to

§§ 27.865(c)(2) and 29.865(c)(2)

Proposed §§ 27.865(c)(2) and

29.865(c)(2) would require that the

applicant demonstrate that the PCDS is

reliable in accordance with the HEC

provisions of §§ 27.865(b)(3)(i) and

29.865(b)(3)(i), respectively; has the

structural capability required under

§§ 27.865(a) and 29.865(a), respectively;

and has the essential personnel safety

provisions (based on the design

configuration of the PCDS) to minimize

hazards to occupants carried external to

the rotorcraft.

Proposed Amendments to

§§ 27.865(c)(3) and 29.865(c)(3)

Proposed §§ 27.865(c)(3) and

29.865(c)(3) would require that all

necessary placards and markings be

provided and be properly located to

facilitate their proper use and, for the

PCDS, to clearly specify the ingress and

egress instructions.

Proposed Amendments to

§§ 27.865(c)(4) and 29.865(c)(4)

Proposed §§ 27.865(c)(4) and

29.865(c)(4) would require that an

intercom system or other approved

equipment be installed to ensure proper

communication among crewmembers

and occupants during an emergency.

For simple rescue systems that do not

have intercom systems mandated by

operating regulations, voice signals or

hand signals to PCDS occupants may be

acceptable. In more complex systems, it

is intended that more sophisticated

communication systems, such as

intercoms, be provided.

Proposed Amendments to

§§ 27.865(c)(5) and 29.865(c)(5)

Proposed §§ 27.865(c)(5) and

29.865(c)(5) would require that all flight

limitations and procedures for HEC

operations be identified and

incorporated in the flight manual.

Proposed Amendment to § 29.865(c)(6)

To be compatible with part 133.45(e),

proposed § 29.865(c)(6) would require,

for HEC operations that require the use

of Category A rotorcraft only (Class D

RLC), that one-engine-inoperative hover

performance capability information

based on a dynamic engine failure

(simulated engine failure in an actual

test rotorcraft) be provided in the flight

manual for the operating weights,

altitudes, and temperatures for which

external load approval is requested.

Proposed Amendments §§ 27.865(d) and

29.865(d).

Proposed new §§ 27.865(d) and

29.865(d) would require that critically

configured jettisonable external loads

(class and type) must be shown to be

both transportable and releasable

without hazard to the rotorcraft during

normal flight conditions. In addition,

these external loads must be shown to

be releasable without hazard to the

rotorcraft during emergency flight

conditions. Compliance with the

proposed requirements can be

accomplished by using a combination of

analysis, ground tests, and flight tests.

This is necessary to ensure that the

extremities of the operating range are

thoroughly explored without

unnecessary risk and cost. The new

provisions would mitigate HEC

transport problems such as

entanglements with the rotorcraft in

flight and will provide a mandatory

flight test validation of the QRS. Current

§§ 27.865(d) and 29.865(d) would be

revised and redesignated as §§ 27.865(f)

and 29.865(f), respectively.

Proposed Amendments to §§ 27.865(e)

and 29.865(e)

Current §§ 27.865(c) and 29.865(c)

would be revised and redesignated as

§§ 27.865(e) and 29.865(e), respectively.

The proposals would amend these

sections by adding a requirement to

install a placard next to the external

load attaching means that specifies any

operational limitations in addition to

the maximum authorized external load

weight that can be attached.
37750 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Proposed Amendments to §§ 27.865(f)

and 29.865(f)

Sections 27.865(d) and 29.865(d)

would be revised and redesignated as

§§ 27.865(f) and 29.865(f), respectively.

These paragraphs would require that for

NHEC, all critical structural elements

such as those in the external load

attachment and carrying system whose

failure would result in a hazard to the

rotorcraft (not just the cargo hook) have

a fatigue analysis in accordance with

§§ 27.571 and 29.571, as applicable. The

proposals would also require that for

HEC, the entire QRS and PCDS and their

attachments to the rotorcraft have a

fatigue analysis in accordance with

§§ 27.571 or 29.571, as applicable.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

§ 3507(d)), there are no requirements for

information collection associated with

this final rule.

International Compatibility

The FAA has reviewed corresponding

International Civil Aviation

Organization international standards

and recommended practices and Joint

Aviation Authorities regulations, where

they exist, and has identified no

differences in these proposed

amendments and the foreign

regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Changes to federal regulations must

undergo several economic analyses.

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that

each Federal agency shall propose or

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned

determination that the benefits of the

intended regulation justify its costs.

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act

of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the

economic impact of regulatory changes

on small entities. Third, the Office of

Management and Budget directs

agencies to assess the effects of

regulatory changes on international

trade. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)

requires agencies to prepare a written

assessment of the costs, benefits and

other effects of proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate likely to

result in the expenditure by State, local

or tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector, of $100 million

or more annually (adjusted for

inflation). In conducting these analyses,

which are summarized as follows (and

available in the docket), the FAA has

determined that this NPRM is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866

and therefore was not reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

NPRM is not considered significant

under Department of Transportation’s

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034,

February 26, 1979). In addition, for the

reasons stated under the ‘‘Trade Impact

Statement’’ and the ‘‘Regulatory

Flexibility Determination,’’ the FAA

certifies that this NPRM will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities and

would not result in the expenditure by

State, local or tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or by the private sector, of

$100 million or more annually.

The FAA invites the public to provide

comments (and related data) on the

assumptions made in this evaluation.

All comments received will be

considered in the final regulatory

evaluation.

Costs and Benefits

Costs

The costs of the proposed rule, which

would be borne by manufacturers and

operators, are evaluated for the time

period extending from its

implementation date through the

operating lives of 75 rotorcraft assumed

to be produced under four new type

certificates (involving 15-year

production runs of 5 rotorcraft per year

total under all four new type

certificates) and placed into part 133

service. Over the course of this

evaluation period, incremental costs

would total approximately $388,500

(1996 dollars), or $203,000 discounted

to present value (using an interest rate

of seven percent and letting ‘‘present’’

be the date of initial type certification

application). Of the $388,500 total cost,

$156,000 is attributable to incremental

design, analysis, test, and other

certification costs, $30,000 to

incremental production costs (75

rotorcraft at $400 each), and $202,500 to

incremental weight penalty fuel costs

($180 per year per rotorcraft over 15-

year operating lives of 75 rotorcraft). On

a per-rotorcraft basis, costs would

average approximately $5,200, or $2,700

discounted. These incremental costs

would be offset to some extent by

potential cost savings associated with

the harmonization of these proposals

with the JAA and eventual creation of

identical JAA airworthiness standards,

streamlining of certification approvals

for part 133 operators, and some relaxed

requirements for parts 27 and 29

manufacturers (see Benefits section,

below).

Benefits

To estimate the safety benefits of the

proposed rule, the FAA reviewed

records of accidents involving part 133

operators that occurred between mid1983 and mid-1994 that could have

been prevented or the losses reduced if

the proposed changes were in effect.

During the 11-year period, there were 17

such accidents involving fatal and/or

non-fatal injuries, or damage to

equipment, or both. Eight of the

accidents resulted in harm to persons

(either inside or outside of the

rotorcraft), totaling eight fatalities and

two serious injuries. Fifteen of the 17

accidents involved either substantial

damage (seven) or destruction of the

rotorcraft (eight).

To provide a basis for comparing the

safety benefits and costs of rulemaking

actions, the FAA currently uses a

minimum statistical value of $2.7

million for a fatality avoided and

$518,000 for a serious injury avoided.

Applying these standards to the casualty

losses summarized above and making

allowances for the costs of rotorcraft

damage, the total cost of the 17

accidents was approximately $27.2

million.

The FAA estimates that the proposed

rule could prevent at least 50 percent of

the type of accidents summarized above.

Applying it retrospectively would yield

dollar benefits of approximately $13.6

million (one-half of $27.2 million). Over

the 11-year accident evaluation period,

the part 133 fleet averaged

approximately 300 active rotorcraft.

Therefore, the benefits would average

approximately $4,100 per year per

rotorcraft ($13.6 million/11 years/300

operating part 133 rotorcraft per year).

Applying this per-rotorcraft safety

benefit to the cumulative number of

complying rotorcraft results in total

safety benefits of $4.6 million (or $1.3

million discounted to present value). On

a per-rotorcraft basis, these benefits

would average approximately $61,500,

or $17,300 discounted.

In addition to improving safety, the

proposed rule would provide some costrelief in certain respects. New

production rotorcraft would be

delivered with standardized procedures

for external load operations, and could

result in a small savings to part 133

operators. Further, changes to current

regulations that relate to the primary

and backup quick-release devices would

reduce production costs for parts 27 and

29 rotorcraft manufacturers. The

changes would also increase

harmonization and commonality

between U.S. and European

airworthiness standards. Harmonization

would eliminate unnecessary

differences in airworthiness

requirements, thus reducing

manufacturers’ certification costs.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37751

Comparison of Costs and Benefits

The proposed rule would generate

benefits in the form of increased safety

and cost relief (see preceding

paragraph—the potential cost relief has

not been included in the cost/benefit

calculation). On a per-rotorcraft basis,

the life-cycle safety benefits would

average approximately $17,300

(discounted) and the costs would

average approximately $2,700

(discounted), yielding a benefit-to-cost

ratio of 6.4 to 1. On this basis alone, the

proposed rule is cost-beneficial;

additional quantified efficiency and

harmonization benefits would increase

this ratio.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of

regulatory issuance that agencies shall

endeavor, consistent with the objective

of the rule and of applicable statutes, to

fit regulatory and informational

requirements to the scale of the

business, organizations, and

governmental jurisdictions subject to

regulation.’’ To achieve that principle,

the Act requires agencies to solicit and

consider flexible regulatory proposals

and to explain the rationale for their

actions. The Act covers a wide-range of

small entities, including small

businesses, not-for-profit organizations

and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to

determine whether a proposed or final

rule will have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. If the determination is that it

will, the agency must prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis as

described in the Act.

However, if an agency determines that

a proposed or final rule is not expected

to have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act

provides that the head of the agency

may so certify and an RFA is not

required. The certification must include

a statement providing the factual basis

for this determination, and the

reasoning should be clear.

The entities that would be affected by

the proposed rule consist of rotorcraft

manufacturers (included in Standard

Industrial Classification (SIC 3721,

Aircraft and Aircraft Parts

Manufacturers) and external load

operators (SIC 4512, 4513, 4522).

Manufacturers would incur additional

development, certification, and

production costs. In addition to

indirectly incurring all or part of these

costs in the form of higher rotorcraft

acquisition costs, operators would incur

increased fuel costs resulting from

weight penalties. Although the

certification costs (non-recurring) would

be either fully absorbed by the

manufacturer(s), passed on in-total to

operator(s) (purchasers), or more likely,

absorbed in some proportion by both,

the FAA in this analysis adopts a

conservative approach and allocates

total certification costs to each category

in assessing significant economic

impact. Incremental per-unit production

costs, however, are assumed to be fully

passed on to purchasers (operators).

For manufacturers, a small entity is

one with 1,500 or fewer employees.

Only five rotorcraft manufacturers have

1,500 or fewer employees and therefore

qualify as small entities. However, three

of these are not currently producing

new type-certificated rotorcraft, and a

fourth does not produce rotorcraft used

for external loads. The fifth small

manufacturer produces specialized

smaller rotorcraft, a minority of which

are configured for external load

operations; this producer does not

compete with the larger manufacturers.

Annualized certification costs imposed

by the proposed rule are estimated to be

$3,800 per manufacturer for each

certification and is not considered

significant within the meaning of the

RFA.

There are numerous external load

operators. The FAA has not determined

how many of these are small operators

and if a substantial number would

potentially be impacted by the proposal.

However, most external load operations

involve specialized activities such as

logging, offshore oil drilling, or

emergency rescue operations, the

demand for which is highly priceinelastic; the operators can readily pass

on the incremental costs to their

customers. Notwithstanding, the

maximum annualized cost per rotorcraft

would most likely not be greater than

$314 (includes manufacturers’

certification and production costs

passed on to the purchaser and

increased fuel costs, but excludes

potential offsetting cost-savings). This

amount probably equates to less than

the cost of two hours’ operating time

(representing a de minimus portion of

annual revenues) and is not considered

significant within the meaning of the

RFA. In addition, no small manufacturer

or small operator would bear a

disproportionate cost burden nor have a

greater likelihood of failing in business

compared to larger entities.

Based on the findings delineated

above and consistent with the objectives

and requirements of the RFA as

amended, the FAA certifies that this

proposed rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The FAA invites comments on this

finding (and the underlying

assumptions) during the public

comment period following publication

of the subject NPRM.

International Trade Impact Assessment

Consistent with the Administration’s

belief in the general superiority,

desirability, and efficacy of free trade, it

is the policy of the Administrator to

remove or diminish, to the extent

feasible, barriers to international trade,

including both barriers affecting the

export of American goods and services

to foreign countries and those affecting

the import of foreign goods and services

into the United States.

In accordance with that policy, the

FAA is committed to develop as much

as possible its aviation standards and

practices in harmony with its trading

partners. Significant cost savings can

result from this, both to United States’

companies doing business in foreign

markets, and foreign companies doing

business in the United States.

This proposed rule is a direct action

to respond to this policy by increasing

the harmonization of the U.S. Federal

Aviation Regulations with the European

Joint Aviation Requirements. The result

would be a positive step toward

removing impediments to international

trade.

Federalism Implications

The regulations proposed herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

states, on the relationship between the

national government and the states, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this proposal

would not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as

Pub. L. 104–4 on March 22, 1995,

requires each Federal agency, to the

extent permitted by law, to prepare a

written assessment of the effects of any

Federal mandate in a proposed or final

agency rule that may result in the

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any

one year. Section 204(a) of the Act, 2

U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal

agency to develop an effective process

to permit timely input by elected
37752 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

officers (or their designees) of State,

local, and tribal governments on a

proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental

mandate.’’ A ‘‘significant

intergovernmental mandate’’ under the

Act is any provision in a Federal agency

regulation that will impose an

enforceable duty upon State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, of

$100 million (adjusted annually for

inflation) in any one year. Section 203

of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which

supplements section 204(a), provides

that before establishing any regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, the

agency shall have developed a plan that,

among other things, provides for notice

to potentially affected small

governments, if any, and for a

meaningful and timely opportunity to

provide input in the development of

regulatory proposals.

The FAA determines that this

proposed rule does not contain a

significant intergovernmental or private

sector mandate as defined by the Act.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 27

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.

14 CFR Part 29

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.

The Proposed Amendments

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend parts 27 and 29 of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

(14 CFR parts 27 and 29) as follows:

PART 27—AIRWORTHINESS

STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY

ROTORCRAFT

1. The authority citation for part 27

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–

44702, 44704.

2. Section 27.25 is amended by

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 27.25 Weight limits

* * * * *

(c) Total weight with jettisonable

external load. A total weight for the

rotorcraft with a jettisonable external

load attached that is greater than the

maximum weight established under

paragraph (a) of this section may be

established for any rotorcraft-load

combination if—

(1) The rotorcraft-load combination

does not include human external cargo,

(2) Structural component approval for

external load operations under either

§ 27.865, or under equivalent

operational standards is obtained,

(3) The portion of the total weight that

is greater than the maximum weight

established under paragraph (a) of this

section is made up only of the weight

of all or part of the jettisonable external

load,

(4) Structural components of the

rotorcraft are shown to comply with the

applicable structural requirements of

this part under the increased loads and

stresses caused by the weight increase

over that established under paragraph

(a) of this section, and

(5) Operation of the rotorcraft at a

total weight greater than the maximum

certificated weight established under

paragraph (a) of this section is limited

by appropriate operating limitations

under § 27.865 (a) and (d) of this part.

3. The undesignated center heading

preceding § 27.865 is revised as set forth

below, and in § 27.865 the section

heading, paragraph (a) introductory text

and paragraph (b) are revised;

paragraphs (c) and (d) are redesignated

as paragraphs (e) and (f) and revised;

and new paragraphs (c) and (d) are

added to read as follows:

External Loads

§ 27.865 External loads.

(a) It must be shown by analysis, test,

or both, that the rotorcraft external load

attaching means for rotorcraft-load

combinations to be used for nonhuman

external cargo applications can

withstand a limit static load equal to

2.5, or some lower load factor approved

under §§ 27.337 through 27.341,

multiplied by the maximum external

load for which authorization is

requested. It must be shown by analysis,

test, or both that the rotorcraft external

load attaching means and corresponding

personnel carrying device system for

rotorcraft-load combinations to be used

for human external cargo applications

can withstand a limit static load equal

to 3.5 or some lower load factor, not less

than 2.5, approved under §§ 27.337

through 27.341, multiplied by the

maximum external load for which

authorization is requested. The load for

any rotorcraft-load combination class,

for any external cargo type, must be

applied in the vertical direction. For

jettisonable external loads of any

applicable external cargo type, the load

must also be applied in any direction

making the maximum angle with the

vertical that can be achieved in service

but not less than 30°. However, the 30°

angle may be reduced to a lesser angle

if—

* * * * *

(b) The external load attaching means,

for jettisonable rotorcraft-load

combinations, must include a quickrelease system to enable the pilot to

release the external load quickly during

flight. The quick-release system must

consist of a primary quick release

subsystem and a backup quick release

subsystem that are isolated from one

another. The quick-release system, and

the means by which it is controlled,

must comply with the following:

(1) A control for the primary quick

release subsystem must be installed

either on one of the pilot’s primary

controls or in an equivalently accessible

location and must be designed and

located so that it may be operated by

either the pilot or a crewmember

without hazardously limiting the ability

to control the rotorcraft during an

emergency situation.

(2) A control for the backup quick

release subsystem, readily accessible to

either the pilot or another crewmember,

must be provided.

(3) Both the primary and backup

quick release subsystems must—

(i) Be reliable, durable, and function

properly with all external loads up to

and including the maximum external

load for which authorization is

requested.

(ii) Be protected against

electromagnetic interference (EMI) from

external and internal sources and

against lightning to prevent inadvertent

load release.

(A) The minimum level of protection

required for jettisonable rotorcraft-load

combinations used for nonhuman

external cargo is a radio frequency field

strength of 20 volts per meter.

(B) The minimum level of protection

required for jettisonable rotorcraft-load

combinations used for human external

cargo is a radio frequency field strength

of 200 volts per meter.

(iii) Be protected against any failure

that could be induced by a failure mode

of any other electrical or mechanical

rotorcraft system.

(c) For rotorcraft-load combinations to

be used for human external cargo

applications, the rotorcraft must—

(1) For jettisonable external loads,

have a quick-release system that meets

the requirements of paragraph (b) of this

section and that—

(i) Provides a dual actuation device

for the primary quick release subsystem,

and

(ii) Provides a separate dual actuation

device for the backup quick release

subsystem.

(2) Have a reliable, approved

personnel carrying device system that

has the structural capability and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37753

personnel safety features essential for

external occupant safety,

(3) Have placards and markings at all

appropriate locations that clearly state

the essential system operating

instructions and, for the personnel

carrying device system, the ingress and

egress instructions.

(4) Have equipment to allow direct

intercommunication among required

crewmembers and external occupants,

and

(5) Have the appropriate limitations

and procedures incorporated in the

flight manual for conducting human

external cargo operations.

(d) The critically configured

jettisonable external loads must be

shown by a combination of analysis,

ground tests, and flight tests to be both

transportable and releasable throughout

the approved operational envelope

without hazard to the rotorcraft during

normal flight conditions. In addition,

these external loads must be shown to

be releasable without hazard to the

rotorcraft during emergency flight

conditions.

(e) A placard or marking must be

installed next to the external-load

attaching means clearly stating any

operational limitations and the

maximum authorized external load as

demonstrated under § 27.25 and this

section.

(f) The fatigue evaluation of § 27.571

of this part does not apply to rotorcraftload combinations to be used for

nonhuman external cargo except for the

failure of critical structural elements

that would result in a hazard to the

rotorcraft. For rotorcraft-load

combinations to be used for human

external cargo, the fatigue evaluation of

§ 27.571 of this part applies to the entire

quick release and personnel carrying

device structural systems and their

attachments.

PART 29—AIRWORTHINESS

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT

CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

4. The authority citation for part 29

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–

44702, 44704.

§ 29.25 [Amended]

5. Section 29.25 is amended by

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

* * * * *

(c) Total weight with jettisonable

external load. A total weight for the

rotorcraft with a jettisonable external

load attached that is greater than the

maximum weight established under

paragraph (a) of this section may be

established for any rotorcraft-load

combination if—

(1) The rotorcraft-load combination

does not include human external cargo,

(2) Structural component approval for

external load operations under either

§ 29.865 or under equivalent operational

standards is obtained,

(3) The portion of the total weight that

is greater than the maximum weight

established under paragraph (a) of this

section is made up only of the weight

of all or part of the jettisonable external

load,

(4) Structural components of the

rotorcraft are shown to comply with the

applicable structural requirements of

this part under the increased loads and

stresses caused by the weight increase

over that established under paragraph

(a) of this section, and

(5) Operation of the rotorcraft at a

total weight greater than the maximum

certificated weight established under

paragraph (a) of this section is limited

by appropriate operating limitations

under § 29.865 (a) and (d) of this part.

6. The undesignated center heading

preceding § 29.865 is revised as set forth

below, and in § 29.865 the section

heading, paragraph (a) introductory text

and paragraph (b) are revised;

paragraphs (c) and (d) are redesignated

as paragraphs (e) and (f) and revised;

and new paragraphs (c) and (d) are

added to read as follows:

External Loads

§ 29.865 External loads.

(a) It must be shown by analysis, test,

or both, that the rotorcraft external load

attaching means for rotorcraft-load

combinations to be used for nonhuman

external cargo applications can

withstand a limit static load equal to

2.5, or some lower load factor approved

under §§ 29.337 through 29.341,

multiplied by the maximum external

load for which authorization is

requested. It must be shown by analysis,

test, or both that the rotorcraft external

load attaching means and corresponding

personnel carrying device system for

rotorcraft-load combinations to be used

for human external cargo applications

can withstand a limit static load equal

to 3.5 or some lower load factor, not less

than 2.5, approved under §§ 29.337

through 29.341, multiplied by the

maximum external load for which

authorization is requested. The load for

any rotorcraft-load combination class,

for any external cargo type, must be

applied in the vertical direction. For

jettisonable external loads of any

applicable external cargo type, the load

must also be applied in any direction

making the maximum angle with the

vertical that can be achieved in service

but not less than 30°. However, the 30°

angle may be reduced to a lesser angle

if—

* * * * *

(b) The external load attaching means,

for jettisonable rotorcraft-load

combinations, must include a quickrelease system to enable the pilot to

release the external load quickly during

flight. The quick-release system must

consist of a primary quick release

subsystem and a backup quick release

subsystem that are isolated from one

another. The quick release system, and

the means by which it is controlled,

must comply with the following:

(1) A control for the primary quick

release subsystem must be installed

either on one of the pilot’s primary

controls or in an equivalently accessible

location and must be designed and

located so that it may be operated by

either the pilot or a crewmember

without hazardously limiting the ability

to control the rotorcraft during an

emergency situation.

(2) A control for the backup quick

release subsystem, readily accessible to

either the pilot or another crewmember,

must be provided.

(3) Both the primary and backup

quick release subsystems must—

(i) Be reliable, durable, and function

properly with all external loads up to

and including the maximum external

load for which authorization is

requested.

(ii) Be protected against

electromagnetic interference (EMI) from

external and internal sources and

against lightning to prevent inadvertent

load release.

(A) The minimum level of protection

required for jettisonable rotorcraft-load

combinations used for nonhuman

external cargo is a radio frequency field

strength of 20 volts per meter.

(B) The minimum level of protection

required for jettisonable rotorcraft-load

combinations used for human external

cargo is a radio frequency field strength

of 200 volts per meter.

(iii) Be protected against any failure

that could be induced by a failure mode

of any other electrical or mechanical

rotorcraft system.

(c) For rotorcraft-load combinations to

be used for human external cargo

applications, the rotorcraft must—

(1) For jettisonable external loads,

have a quick-release system that meets

the requirements of paragraph (b) of this

section and that—

(i) Provides a dual actuation device

for the primary quick release subsystem,

and
37754 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

(ii) Provides a separate dual actuation

device for the backup quick release

subsystem.

(2) Have a reliable, approved

personnel carrying device system that

has the structural capability and

personnel safety features essential for

external occupant safety.

(3) Have placards and markings at all

appropriate locations that clearly state

the essential system operating

instructions and, for the personnel

carrying device system, ingress and

egress instructions,

(4) Have equipment to allow direct

intercommunication among required

crewmembers and external occupants,

(5) Have the appropriate limitations

and procedures incorporated in the

flight manual for conducting human

external cargo operations, and

(6) For human external cargo

applications requiring use of Category A

rotorcraft, have one-engine-inoperative

hover performance data and procedures

in the flight manual for the weights,

altitudes, and temperatures for which

external load approval is requested.

(d) The critically configured

jettisonable external loads must be

shown by a combination of analysis,

ground tests, and flight tests to be both

transportable and releasable throughout

the approved operational envelope

without hazard to the rotorcraft during

normal flight conditions. In addition,

these external loads must be shown to

be releasable without hazard to the

rotorcraft during emergency flight

conditions.

(e) A placard or marking must be

installed next to the external-load

attaching means clearly stating any

operational limitations and the

maximum authorized external load as

demonstrated under § 29.25 and this

section.

(f) The fatigue evaluation of § 29.571

of this part does not apply to rotorcraftload combinations to be used for

nonhuman external cargo except for the

failure of critical structural elements

that would result in a hazard to the

rotorcraft. For rotorcraft-load

combinations to be used for human

external cargo, the fatigue evaluation of

§ 29.571 of this part applies to the entire

quick release and personnel carrying

device structural systems and their

attachments.

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 6, 1998.

Thomas E. McSweeney,

Director, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–18552 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P